paine@fungus.dec.com (Willy Paine) (09/29/89)
I have contacted several people on private personal opinion on comparing
between Xenix and SCO UNIX on performance and price. Now I am trying to
find out between SCO Unix and ICS 386/xi 2.0+. I am told that SCO Unix
is slower or more clumsy than Xenix and couple of SCO Unix owners are so
UNempressing with SCO Unix performance. Some said the kernel is too
big and using too much memory that don't allow enough memory for
X-sight. I have the latest verison Xenix and ICS 386/ix and they are
different on size and performance but I am curious about SCO Unix vs ICS
386/ix. One person is saying that ICS 386/ix is better product than
new SCO Unix but I can not tell if he already test with 386/ix.
I am still checking on upgrade cost. I think upgrade cost could be too
expensive that this is rather close to distributor's price on buying brand
new SCO Unix. There are two difference choice, 2 users and unlimited
users. I think 2 users product is a rip off because I have past experience
with 2 users version. If I add mouse in one port or run another virtual
tty (this was old ICS 1.06), it screws up the whole system but I have not
tried the latest version on 2 users product.
SCO Product Support have improved quiet a bit over a year ago and I am
very please with fast response and I think SCO is good reputation as
being old and stable company on Unix for micros. Major disadvantage is
really high prices. ICS is agressive company with good effortable
discount on Unix close to real System V standard but is rather flaky on
fixing products.
willy
p.s. This is my own opinion and I am running Xenix/386 and ICS at home.
My company has nothing to do with these at all......terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) (09/29/89)
In article <8909281749.AA03817@decwrl.dec.com> paine@fungus.dec.com (Willy Paine) writes: > >I have contacted several people on private personal opinion on comparing >between Xenix and SCO UNIX on performance and price. Now I am trying to >find out between SCO Unix and ICS 386/xi 2.0+. I am told that SCO Unix >is slower or more clumsy than Xenix and couple of SCO Unix owners are so >UNempressing with SCO Unix performance. Performance in what area? Disk speed? Floating point speed? Serial I/O handling? >Some said the kernel is too >big and using too much memory that don't allow enough memory for >X-sight. Both SCO UNIX and Xsight say that 4 MB is the MINIMUM recommended memory configuration. It has been my experience that the minimums SCO recommends are the absolute minimums that you should even consider. You should have more. I found that even running XENIX 4 MB was not really enough memory if you are running large programs (like GNU Emacs) concurrently with Xsight. Did this person have 8 MB in his machine? That would seem to be a good starting point for heavy Xsight users running 3.2. I have the latest verison Xenix and ICS 386/ix and they are >different on size and performance but I am curious about SCO Unix vs ICS >386/ix. One person is saying that ICS 386/ix is better product than >new SCO Unix but I can not tell if he already test with 386/ix. >I am still checking on upgrade cost. The run-time upgrade from XENIX 2.3 -> UNIX 3.2 cost me $325 as Softcare supported customer. I do not know if the price of the development system upgrade has been set yet. I do know that the development system started shipping just recently, so it will probably be a while before the DS upgrade is available. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (09/29/89)
From article <8909281749.AA03817@decwrl.dec.com>, by paine@fungus.dec.com (Willy Paine): > > I have contacted several people on private personal opinion on comparing > between Xenix and SCO UNIX on performance and price. Now I am trying to > find out between SCO Unix and ICS 386/xi 2.0+. I am told that SCO Unix > is slower or more clumsy than Xenix and couple of SCO Unix owners are so > UNempressing with SCO Unix performance. As for being slower mabe their is more going on in the kernel and you have to imporve the hardware performance to get the overall performance you wish. How in the world can a UNIX OS be clumsy. I haven't used SCO UNIX yet, but I doubt if I log into one and do a 'ls' it's going to tell me "dah! sorry forgot what was in your directory". And if you want to state something about UNIX performance back it up with benchmark results. > Some said the kernel is too > big and using too much memory that don't allow enough memory for > X-sight. You got a choice buy a small kenel that won't do what you want but save you money. Or buy more memory to support your kernel. Ding! I have the latest verison Xenix and ICS 386/ix and they are > different on size and performance but I am curious about SCO Unix vs ICS > 386/ix. One person is saying that ICS 386/ix is better product than > new SCO Unix but I can not tell if he already test with 386/ix. Boy you think you got problems. Now Everex and Dell and ATT computers sells a 386ix unix. That means you have to compare five unix systems. > I am still checking on upgrade cost. I think upgrade cost could be too > expensive that this is rather close to distributor's price on buying brand > new SCO Unix. I'll have to admit SCO and ISC went up in price. You get what you pay for right. >There are two difference choice, 2 users and unlimited > users. I think 2 users product is a rip off because I have past experience > with 2 users version. This was hashed out before, the marketing types blame it on the legal department, the legal department dosn't have anything about it. To me it's a sales gimmick to commit a buyer to a unix os. Some have said it's a policy that cannot get around. Some actually use it and will never upgrade. The worst effect seems to be when the first time user has been sold on the rationale that 2 user license will server his/her needs when in fact after using it they find they need a multi-user license for thier needs. Buyer beware right? > > SCO Product Support have improved quiet a bit over a year ago and I am > very please with fast response and I think SCO is good reputation as > being old and stable company on Unix for micros. Being old dosn't mean your stable. And being stable dosn't mean your old. > Major disadvantage is > really high prices. ICS is agressive company with good effortable > discount on Unix close to real System V standard but is rather flaky on > fixing products. If thier prices are too high they loose to the competition. It's kind of like buying a car. If you wanted a volkswagen but bought a mercedes you really can't complain you spent too much money. But than again thiers fords, gm's and that other company. > p.s. This is my own opinion and I am running Xenix/386 and ICS at home. > My company has nothing to do with these at all...... p.s. These are also my opionions. I am running a Ford and a Subaru. -- Bob Palowoda packbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|dasiy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/29/89)
> I have contacted several people on private personal opinion on comparing > between Xenix and SCO UNIX on performance and price. Now I am trying to > find out between SCO Unix and ICS 386/xi 2.0+. I am told that SCO Unix > is slower or more clumsy than Xenix and couple of SCO Unix owners are so > UNempressing with SCO Unix performance. Some said the kernel is too > big and using too much memory that don't allow enough memory for > X-sight. I have the latest verison Xenix and ICS 386/ix and they are Did you see the review between the two in Unix Review? > different on size and performance but I am curious about SCO Unix vs ICS > 386/ix. One person is saying that ICS 386/ix is better product than > new SCO Unix but I can not tell if he already test with 386/ix. > I am still checking on upgrade cost. I think upgrade cost could be too > expensive that this is rather close to distributor's price on buying brand > new SCO Unix. There are two difference choice, 2 users and unlimited > users. I think 2 users product is a rip off because I have past experience > with 2 users version. If I add mouse in one port or run another virtual I agree with the 2 users version being a rip (in my case at least). ISC is buggy and the only support available is that via Usenet. The office in Hollis NH is all screwed up with the technical support team not properly trained and having a bad record of not returning telephone calls. The Hollis office wasn't even aware of the X5 kernel upgrade kit that has been available for the last 3 weeks. Stay away from ISC unless you have a lot of time to invest playing with the OS and finding out how it really works. Forget the ISC manuals - they are the pits - I mean real bad. Hopefully SCO is marketing their excellent Xenix manuals that have been re-written for Unix. > SCO Product Support have improved quiet a bit over a year ago and I am > very please with fast response and I think SCO is good reputation as > being old and stable company on Unix for micros. Major disadvantage is > really high prices. ICS is agressive company with good effortable > discount on Unix close to real System V standard but is rather flaky on > fixing products. After contacting Kodak with my ISC complaints - they basically said that ISC is "on their own and we are sorry for any problems". Calls to Mr. Kurt Lynn (who is in charge of the Hollis office) were never returned. Again - I would suggest staying away from ISC. Personally my plans are to wait for SCO 3.2 to be refined over the next year and maybe upgrading next summer. -- Larry Snyder uucp:iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site Notre Dame, IN USA
paine@fungus.dec.com (Willy Paine) (09/29/89)
>Performance in what area? Disk speed? Floating point speed? Serial I/O >handling? I wish I get more information from other Xenix owners but I assume they are using normal or standard computer. >Both SCO UNIX and Xsight say that 4 MB is the MINIMUM recommended memory >configuration. It has been my experience that the minimums SCO recommends >are the absolute minimums that you should even consider. You should have >more. I found that even running XENIX 4 MB was not really enough memory >if you are running large programs (like GNU Emacs) concurrently with Xsight. I agree with you. In my office, I am running DECstation 3100 "Pmax" using 24 megB memory with DECwindow (X-windows)!! I have 5 megB memory in my Compaq 386/20 and I will need new board. I don't really know how to get more memory for this machine and Compaq does not make this machine anymore. Dealer want to talk about selling new computer only. What hardware do you have? Does Xsight work on newest Xenix/386? willy
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/29/89)
In article <802@fiver.UUCP>, palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: | >There are two difference choice, 2 users and unlimited | > users. I think 2 users product is a rip off because I have past experience | > with 2 users version. | | This was hashed out before, the marketing types blame it on the legal | department, the legal department dosn't have anything about it. | [ comment truncated, about policy ] Several thoughts about the 2U license. There are some applications for which it is perfectly fine. It gives a uucp login and console, and if that's what the user needs it's a chance to buy at a lower price. I do think all the virtual consoles should count as one user, since there is no practical way more users could share it. That should not make ATT unhappy, although it requires a smart user counter. There is a company which is packaging the 2U unix with a 6 port serial board for a very cheap price. My first impression is that they are leading people into a false conclusion, but I haven't gotten to them yet because of the timezone diference. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon